Protocol-Sensitive Evaluation of Log Anomaly Detection: Component Costs and Target-Access Sensitivity on HDFS and BGL
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Protocol choices can change the conclusions drawn from log anomaly detection benchmarks even when detector settings are fixed. We present a joint empirical study of split construction, representation visibility, and component costs using six fixed count, sequence, and semantic configurations on Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) and Blue Gene/L (BGL) logs. Random splits place several configurations near the average-precision ceiling, whereas group-disjoint HDFS and chronological BGL evaluation produce lower scores and different observed orderings. At a fixed BGL cutoff, parser choice spans 0.124 in semantic XGBoost mean average precision while preserving its lead over count XGBoost; the earliest rolling period reverses that ordering. A two-factor cross-system ablation contrasts source-only representations with offline transductive access to unlabeled target templates through the representation corpus and inverse document frequency: HDFS-to-BGL mean average precision moves from 0.191 with source-only access to 0.325 with union-corpus, target-IDF access, and the intermediate conditions reveal direction-dependent interactions in average precision and retrieval at fixed review budgets. Component-level profiling separates parsing and representation costs from classifier training, prediction, and storage. Together, these findings connect detector comparisons to the test population, preprocessing state, visible information, and measured pipeline stages, and identify the protocol fields needed alongside a score to support interpretable comparisons of log anomaly detection accuracy and resource use.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.
Builds on
13 of 32 references.
References · 13
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
- 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,375
- 2021LogBERT: Log Anomaly Detection via BERTcited by 118
- 2020Loghub: A Large Collection of System Log Datasets for AI-driven Log Analyticscited by 70
- 2022Log-based Anomaly Detection with Deep Learning: How Far Are We?cited by 57
- 2022Deep Learning for Anomaly Detection in Log Data: A Surveycited by 28
- 2024LogLLM: Log-based Anomaly Detection Using Large Language Modelscited by 22
- 2021SemParser: A Semantic Parser for Log Analysiscited by 17
- 2023A Critical Review of Common Log Data Sets Used for Evaluation of Sequence-based Anomaly Detection Techniquescited by 8
- 2024LogSD: Detecting Anomalies from System Logs through Self-supervised Learning and Frequency-based Maskingcited by 5
- 2023Impact of Log Parsing on Deep Learning-Based Anomaly Detectioncited by 4
- 2023A Comprehensive Study of Machine Learning Techniques for Log-Based Anomaly Detectioncited by 4
1 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.